Here are a few examples the article cites for calling Edwards “the real liberal” in the race:

Take global warming: While Clinton spouts happy talk about ethanol and “clean coal,” and Obama focuses on a technocratic proposal to lower the “carbon intensity” of auto fuel, Edwards has a plan that would make the Union of Concerned Scientists proud. “We need an eighty percent reduction in greenhouse emissions by 2050,” the candidate told Rolling Stone in a wide-ranging interview. “You start by capping carbon emissions in America. Beneath the cap, you auction off the right to emit any greenhouse gases. And you use that money –$30 to $40 billion — to transform the way we use energy.”

… Ending deprivation at home — by making it easier for workers to unionize, raising the minimum wage to $9.50, cracking down on predatory lending, and providing matching funds to help low-income Americans save — remains the hallmark of his candidacy. But informed by his travels in Africa, Edwards now proposes spending $5 billion a year to educate 100 million children worldwide, improve drinking water and sanitation in developing countries, and slow the ravages of HIV and AIDS.

… He was the first contender with a plan for universal medical coverage, and his proposal goes further than Obama’s by mandating that every American be provided a health plan. And where Clinton would leave a significant troop presence in Iraq indefinitely, Edwards calls for a complete withdrawal. He has issued the most forceful repudiation of Bush’s “war” on terror, and in July he proposed a tax hike for wealthy investors.

… and the piece points out, once again, the key bit of info I wish I could beam into the brain of every Democratic primary voter:

In head-to-head polling against the likes of Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, Clinton and Obama have managed to post only modest leads. Edwards, by contrast, not only bests every Republican candidate in the race, he trounces them — by an average of twelve points.

The article also makes clear that despite the media’s forced binary “Hillary or Obama?” narrative, Edwards has a real shot at winning Iowa, because he’s quietly done an impressive job of organizing and building support in a state that already likes him. And if Edwards wins Iowa, he’s in the game for sure.

Tags:

4 Comments so far ↓

Honestly? I hope Hillary and Obama just eat each other–then maybe there’d be some more room for John. I’m sorry, I just don’t trust the former two anymore. I always thought Edwards was the better of the two running mates in ’04, too (in much the same way as I always thought Gore was smarter than Bill Clinton).

I TRUST Obama, but I don’t have confidence in his level of experience. How about Edwards-Gore. I could go for that, sure. Are there alternatives? Dark horses? Any shot in hell for a third option? (I don’t think so, the way elections work.

For me, the number one issue has to be healthcare — it’s importance was driven home to me when i was unemployed and just had to hope for nearly two years that i didn’t get seriously ill. Clinton is out of the running when it comes to healthcare, and Obama I don’t trust because his wife was an administrator at the University of Chicago Hospitals, where it was part of her job to make sure the hospital made money, which it does by turning away people who can’t afford to pay for care. Edwards is the only electable candidate who has shown the courage to stand up for full healthcare for everyone.

I like the Obama. I think he’s a good VP candidate. I ‘m also fond of Edwards, but believe our editor selected about the swishiest picture of the former Senator possible. This would be his pose if he were one of those dancing men in tights from Shrek.

He’s kind of a skinny-necked white guy on the outside. I believe he is one the most truly liberal Dems of the pack.